SEM Anaheim 2008 Enrollment or Enrolment Implementing SEM

SEM Anaheim 2008 Enrollment or Enrolment: Implementing SEM in the Canadian Context Pre-conference Workshop November 16, 2008 Anaheim, California © Gottheil, Smith 1

SEM Anaheim 2008 Presenters Susan Gottheil, M. A. Associate Vice-President, Enrolment Management Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Senior Consultant, AACRAO Consulting sgottheil@mtroyal. ca Clayton Smith, Ed. D. Vice-Provost, Students & Registrar University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada Senior Consultant, AACRAO Consulting csmith@uwindsor. ca © Gottheil, Smith 2

SEM Anaheim 2008 Let’s Meet You! Introduce Yourself: - Name - Institution - Title - 3 top SEM issues/concerns for you/your institution © Gottheil, Smith 3

SEM Anaheim 2008 Workshop Goals Ø Establish a common understanding of SEM Ø Identify similarities & differences between U. S. & Canadian SEM practices Ø Use a case study to apply SEM principles in the Canadian context Ø Present recent trends, best practices & emerging Canadian SEM issues Ø Review key components of a SEM Plan Ø Ensure lots of discussion and sharing of challenges & best practices © Gottheil, Smith 4

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Booklet Ø Copies of Power. Point presentation Ø SEM Audit Ø Canadian Context SEM Case Study Ø Article on Canadian vs. U. S. SEM Ø SEM Plan Web Sites Ø Bibliography © Gottheil, Smith 5

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM Audit © Gottheil, Smith 6

SEM Anaheim 2008 A bit about SEM… © Gottheil, Smith 7

SEM Anaheim 2008 Prospects The Classic Admissions Funnel Inquiries Applicants Admits Matrics © Gottheil, Smith 8

SEM Anaheim 2008 Enrolment Management Enrollment management is an organizational concept and a systematic set of activities designed to enable educational institutions to exert more influence over their student enrollments. Organized by strategic planning and supported by institutional research, enrollment management activities concern student college choice, transition to college, student attrition and retention, and student outcomes. These processes are studied to guide institutional practices in the areas of new student recruitment and financial aid, student support services, curriculum development and other academic areas that affect enrollments, student persistence and student outcomes from college. - Don Hossler, 1990 © Gottheil, Smith 9

SEM Anaheim 2008 Promoting Student Success: The Student Success Continuum Recruitment / Marketing Orientation Classroom experience Co-curricular support Degree/goal attainment Student’s college /university career Admission Financial support Academic support © Gottheil, Smith Retention 10

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Student Success Continuum Traditional Enrolment Perspective Recruitment / Marketing Orientation Classroom experience Co-curricular support Degree/goal attainment Student’s college /university career Admission Financial support Academic support © Gottheil, Smith Retention 11

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Student Success Continuum The SEM Perspective Recruitment / Marketing Orientation Classroom experience Co-curricular support Degree/goal attainment Student’s college /university career Admission Financial Aid Academic support © Gottheil, Smith Retention 12

SEM Anaheim 2008 What is SEM? Ø SEM is a comprehensive process designed to help an institution achieve and maintain optimum enrolment, where optimum is defined within the academic context of the institution. Michael Dolence (1993) Ø Strategic enrolment management is a concept and process that enables the fulfillment of institutional mission and students’ educational goals. Bob Bontrager (2004) © Gottheil, Smith 13

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Concept of Optimum Enrolment Ethnicity Physical Capacity Undergrad/ Grad Majors Institutional Mission Academic Profiles Special Skills Residency Program Capacity © Gottheil, Smith 14

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Purposes of SEM are Achieved by… Ø Establishing clear goals for the number & types of students needed to fulfil the institutional mission Ø Promoting student academic success by improving access, transition, retention, & graduation Ø Promoting institutional success by enabling effective strategic & financial planning © Gottheil, Smith 15

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Purposes of SEM are Achieved by… Ø Creating a data-rich environment to inform decisions & evaluate strategies Ø Improving process, organizational & financial efficiency & outcomes Ø Establishing top quality student-centred service Ø Strengthening communications & collaboration among departments across the campus to support the enrolment program -Bontrager (2004) © Gottheil, Smith 16

SEM Anaheim 2008 No One Way “Myths about enrolment management are abundant, yet one truism has emerged…there is no single way to implement enrollment management. ” -Jim Black (2004) © Gottheil, Smith 17

SEM Anaheim 2008 What SEM is Not Ø A quick fix Ø Solely an organizational structure Ø An enhanced admission & marketing operation Ø A financial drain on the institutional budget Ø An administrative function separate from the academic mission of the institution © Gottheil, Smith 18

SEM Anaheim 2008 Institutional Mission & Enrolment Goals Are Determined By: Current competitive status Programs offered Range of influence Niche Weaknesses Historical status Aspirational status Strengths …with consideration to institutional differentiation! © Gottheil, Smith 19

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Enrolment Funnel is Different for Different Students Student Type: • Aboriginal Students • New Canadians • International Students • First Generation Students • Northern Canadians • Rural Students • Students with Disabilities • Dislocated Workers • Francophone Students • Sole Support Mothers • Low-income Students • Visible Minority Students • High-Achieving Students © Gottheil, Smith 20

SEM Anaheim 2008 Determine your niche, focus on it, and deliver on it as well as you possibly can. . . © Gottheil, Smith 21

SEM Anaheim 2008 Enrolment Goals: The Classic Conundrum Ø All may want better students Ø Administration may want more students Ø Faculty usually want fewer students Ø Access vs. Quality -Adapted from Henderson (2005) © Gottheil, Smith 22

SEM Anaheim 2008 “Capacity Development Loop” + + = Programs & Courses Offered + Programs & Courses Developed & Approved + + Demand for Programs & Courses Enrolled Reasons For Not Continuing + + + Programs & Courses Completed Students Graduated, Transferred, Hired Student Retention + + + = Gov’t Grants & External Funding Tuition & Other Sources Of Revenue Student Attrition + = = Gov’t Approval For Credit Programs Courses Taught + or + + “Delivery Loop” Source: P. Seto, 2008 © Gottheil, Smith 23

SEM Anaheim 2008 Enrolment Management System Student Characteristics Environmental Factors Member of underserved student group Student enrolment behaviour Beliefs & values Demographic trends Academic preparation Institutional Goals Quantitative Goals Institutional Objectives Student headcount Competition Motivation to learn Educational aspirations Public Accountability (loan default rate, graduation, Accessibility, retention) Self-discipline Adaptability Interpersonal skills Peer involvement Ability to pay Study habits Family & peer Support Student geographic draw Economic Trends Off-campus employment availability Federal & provincial polices Qualitative Goals Diversity Goals Admission average Transfer GPA Visible minorities, Aboriginal, international Institutional Strategies • Marketing • Recruitment • Admission • Financial aid/pricing • Orientation • Residence • Athletics • First Year • Experience • Advising • Supplemental instruction • Service learning • Learning communities • Academic support • Peer support • Teaching & learning approaches • Student engagement • SEM organization • Data mining Persistence Goals Retention rates, Student Satisfaction, graduation rates Capacity Goals Classroom capacity, adequate sections, Class size Net Revenue Goals Financial aid discount rate, international © Gottheil, Smith enrolment Desired Outcomes Awareness Enduring Effect Institutional Loyalty Enduring Behaviour Institutional Image Interest Commitment Enrolment Persistence Satisfaction Education Relationship Source: Kuh et al , 2007; Black, 2003 24

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM Started in the U. S. Ø Started in the late 1970’s at Boston College • As a result of declining traditional student enrolments Ø Early focus on attracting new students (e. g. , returning adults, women, minorities, lowincome) Ø Expanded to all types of PSE institutions (e. g. , public, private, 2 -year, 4 -year, grad) © Gottheil, Smith 25

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM Started in the U. S. (Cont’d. ) Ø Grew to include student success • First-Year Experience programs • Increased levels of student engagement Ø Increasing emphasis on connecting with institutional financial management Ø Now the concern of the senior leadership team – presidents, provost, deans © Gottheil, Smith 26

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM in Canada vs. the U. S. …some things are the same AND some things are different… © Gottheil, Smith 27

SEM Anaheim 2008 Values/History Ø Different cultures, history, values & systems of education Ø Social justice vs. market orientation • Serving the public good; equitable access to basic goods & services; education as a civic virtue • vs. business orientation – focus on pricing & meeting financial targets; students as “customers” rather than “partners” in learning and governance Ø Historical immigration patterns Ø Privacy issues Ø Equity/affirmative action © Gottheil, Smith 28

SEM Anaheim 2008 Educational Systems Ø Provincial control in Canada; state & federal control in U. S. Ø Number & size of institutions • Canada has fewer institutions (230 colleges & universities • • vs. 3, 500+), more homogeneity Vary in size, not quality Private, faith-based & for-profit institutions Commuter vs. residential institutions Quebec: Cegep system Ø Collaboration between colleges & universities • Developed unevenly in Canada; varies from virtually none to highly articulated (B. C. & Alberta) © Gottheil, Smith 29

SEM Anaheim 2008 Differentiation Ø Long history of relatively few universities, almost all public, relatively comparable & of relatively high quality (compared to US) Ø Emerging trend towards increasing differentiation among institutions (Macleans, G-13) Ø Tiering of institutions has been apparent in U. S. , beginning to emerge in Canada Ø This will increase as competition increases © Gottheil, Smith 30

SEM Anaheim 2008 Enrolment Growth Ø Educational participation rates in Canada have grown • In 2003, 76% of Canadians aged 22 – 24 attended a PSE; in 1999 proportion was 62% • Proportion of high school graduates increased from 75% in 1999 to almost 90% in 2003 • Yet just over half of 25 -34 year olds have a college diploma or university degree Ø Between 1994/95 & 2004/05 undergraduate enrolment in colleges & universities increased 19% (Statistics Canada & CMEC, 2007) Ø Changing demographics • Aging population • Traditional-age student base will decline significantly after 2013 -2016 © Gottheil, Smith 31

SEM Anaheim 2008 Changing Environment Ø Constrained resources & tuition dependency Ø Rising tuition & ancillary fees Ø Increasing competition for students Ø Increased student debt loads Ø Growing concern with educational costs & financial aid © Gottheil, Smith 32

SEM Anaheim 2008 Accountability Ø Increased scrutiny by government, parents, students Ø Introduction of accountability measures (KPIs) and highly detailed performance plans Ø Growing focus on identifying & measuring learning outcomes Ø Questioning of high attrition rates and longer times to degree completion • If 50% don’t complete, what happens to them? • Why should the public pay for so few “outputs”? © Gottheil, Smith 33

SEM Anaheim 2008 “Son, I Hardly Know ‘Ya …” “This year will come as no exception, and once again the faculty will remain the same age as the students get younger. ” -Ron Nief Director of Public Affairs, Beloit College © Gottheil, Smith 34

SEM Anaheim 2008 CUSC: Who Are Our Students? Ø Still predominantly “traditional age” Ø Females outnumber males 2 : 1 Ø Greater diversity • Aboriginal & international students • Immigrant, first generation & low income students • Students with disabilities & mental health issues Ø Half are working & many juggling multiple commitments • Acknowledge it has at least some negative impact on academic performance • More difficult to fully engage in campus life Ø Half carry significant debt (on average, $19, 000) © Gottheil, Smith 35

SEM Anaheim 2008 Who Are Our Students Ø Fewer students interested in education/learning “for its own sake” • Increased “careerist” & “employability” orientation • Students less willing to explore & experiment with program/course selection • Liberal arts becoming a luxury for a small minority © Gottheil, Smith 36

SEM Anaheim 2008 Our Students Ø Taking fewer courses/term & longer to complete degrees Ø “Swirling” enrolment patterns • 1/3 of university students & 1/4 of college students still on campus after 5 years or graduate in another discipline or at another place than where they started (Finnie, Statistics Canada, 2008) Ø Looking for more flexibility in scheduling & delivery methods Ø “Customer” orientation→ expectations of high levels of service © Gottheil, Smith 37

SEM Anaheim 2008 Our Students: The Networked Generation Ø Today’s PSE applicants are the first generation to grow up with the Internet Ø Networked – connected, mobile, multi-tasking Ø Social networking, on-line communities are hugely important in their lives • 15 -18 year olds spend 88 minutes per day on social networking websites (10 hours per week) (Academica) • 61% of Canadian PSE applicants with Facebook log in daily © Gottheil, Smith 38

SEM Anaheim 2008 Millennial Students The letter was very direct. The student was offered an entrance scholarship to woo her to …but the young woman expected more and went straight to the top to get it. She sent a letter to our president – not the admissions officer, not the dean – but to our president. It basically said, “Before I make my final decision, is there anything else you’d like to put on the table? ” And the university did sweeten the package! -National Post (2004) © Gottheil, Smith 39

SEM Anaheim 2008 Emergence of SEM in Canada Ø Slower emergence of SEM in Canada Ø Driven by funding cuts, lack of revenue, heavier reliance on tuition, changing demographics © Gottheil, Smith 40

SEM Anaheim 2008 © Gottheil, Smith 41

SEM Anaheim 2008 Emergence of SEM in Canada Ø Many Canadian institutions have now adopted SEM in name, practice or both • We’re attending webinars, workshops & conferences • Some of us are working with consultants Ø What can we learn from our U. S. SEM colleagues? • What makes us different & unique? • Are there different approaches we might/should consider in Canada? © Gottheil, Smith 42

SEM Anaheim 2008 Major SEM Components Ø SEM Organization Ø Recruitment Ø Data Mining & Analysis Ø Admissions Ø SEM Plan Ø Marketing Ø Financial Aid Ø Student Services Ø Retention © Gottheil, Smith 43

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM Organization Ø Lack of clarity as to what SEM is (e. g. setting enrolment targets, renaming of registrar’s function, conceptual framework, organizational structure? ) Ø Most manage SEM from the Registrar’s Office Ø Some institution-wide committees Ø Some matrix management Ø EM title becoming more common © Gottheil, Smith 44

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM Plan Ø Many institutions use enrolment management strategies • Many tactics fundamentally marketing activities Ø Few have a SEM Plan Ø Beginning to develop comprehensive & strategic plans – but most PSEs don’t have the organizational structure to support it © Gottheil, Smith 45

SEM Anaheim 2008 “Without data you’re just another person with an opinion. ” - Unknown © Gottheil, Smith 46

SEM Anaheim 2008 Data Ø What puts the “S” in “SEM”; basis of SEM plan • Transactional data • Recruitment & retention analysis • Course & classroom scheduling • Assessment of strategies, services & outcomes Ø Canada: no federal education office, no common data set, until recently (CMSF, Educational Policy Institute) little research Ø U. S. : IPEDs, National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education © Gottheil, Smith 47

SEM Anaheim 2008 Creating a Data-Driven Enrolment Plan The Enrolment Data Agenda Alumni Research Placement Data Graduate Rates Retention Data Student Surveys Financial Aid Analysis Yield Data Admission Statistics Enrolment Strategies Active Alumni Graduated Engaged, Satisfied Retained Alumni engagement Graduation/ Career Development First Year Exp. & Retention Programs Enrolled Deposited Yield Applied/Admitted Competitive Analysis Market Research Recruitment Prospective Students Marketing © Gottheil, Smith 48

SEM Anaheim 2008 Marketing Ø Purpose: to gather broad, initial interest in institution Ø “Suspect” direct mail used extensively in U. S. • In Canada more difficult due to privacy legislation to target prospective students • Goedemographic profiling not used widely Ø But increased focus on capturing & managing inquiries • Plan events to capture names (grades 9 – 11) • Request for info cards/on-line requests • Student e-mails/phone calls © Gottheil, Smith 49

SEM Anaheim 2008 Marketing (Cont’d. ) Ø Greater use of mass media advertising in U. S. (larger population makes it less expensive) • Greater use now in Canada Ø Branding, positioning initiatives widespread © Gottheil, Smith 50

SEM Anaheim 2008 Recruitment Ø Purpose: To attract the “right” students into specific programs Ø Move from “liaison” to “recruitment” Ø Historical collegial approach…too many students for too many years Ø Shifting regional demographics & variability across Canada. • Atlantic Canada: demographic decreases coupled with large number of institutions • Ontario: projected demand for new university in Toronto GTA • Alberta: changing high school demographic, in-migration, hot economy • B. C. : had more demand for seats; university-colleges created as high school population declined – now universities as province cuts funding to PSE system © Gottheil, Smith 51

SEM Anaheim 2008 Recruitment (Cont'd. ) Ø College search process a “bigger deal” in U. S. • Starts in Grades 9 & 10 or earlier Ø Most Canadian students (¾) attend their local university • Little student mobility between provinces • Those not traveling far for college twice as likely to be 1 st generation Ø Student life not a large factor in Canada Ø Use of alumni limited Ø Importance of campus visit & open houses in both Canada & U. S. • Subsidized travel (ex. – Mount Allison’s “Three Travel for Free” program) © Gottheil, Smith 52

SEM Anaheim 2008 Targeted Recruitment Initiatives Ø Declining enrolment try to find students who haven’t traditionally enrolled (low-income, Aboriginal students, firstgeneration, rural, international) Ø One-half of students from low-income families don’t continue past high school vs. one-quarter from high-income families (Baldwin & Parkin, 2007) Ø By age 20, non-Aboriginal youth 3 x more likely than Aboriginal youth to be in PSE (Baldwin & Parkin, 2007) © Gottheil, Smith 53

SEM Anaheim 2008 Targeted Recruitment Initiatives Ø 81% of 18 to 24 year olds whose parents have a university education participate in PSE, compared to 53% for young people whose parents didn’t go past high school (CMSF, 2008) Ø Web of obstacles to access: • finances (disputed by EPI & Mesa Project); • inadequate academic preparation; • insufficient information, guidance, & encouragement © Gottheil, Smith 54

SEM Anaheim 2008 Targeted Recruitment Initiatives Ø Specialized academic programs • Metis Criminal Justice program at Lethbridge College • U Cape Breton: program in Aboriginal Science integrates Aboriginal & western views of natural world Ø Summer camps, bridging & transition programs Ø Targeted bursaries & scholarships © Gottheil, Smith 55

SEM Anaheim 2008 Targeted Recruitment Initiatives Ø Community-based activities/partnerships/mentorships • School boards, churches, First Nations • Pathways to Education programs Ø Boosting campus visits Ø Marketing in other languages, in community & ethnic-based publications Ø Targeted web microsites © Gottheil, Smith 56

SEM Anaheim 2008 International Student Recruitment Ø More than 2/3 of Canadian universities actively market educational products & services internationally Ø ¾ of Canadian universities now have education & training programs outside Canada Ø “Branding” of Canada (Imagine: Education au/in Canada) © Gottheil, Smith 57

SEM Anaheim 2008 Admissions Ø Purpose: To use differing strategies, processes & policies to maximize yield Ø Basis of admission • Primarily high school marks in Canada (Grade 12, now some Grade 11) • U. S. : array of indicators (3 -year high school average, class ranking, SAT/ACT scores, essays, interviews, AP courses) – now being questioned • Intentional segmentation of “the class” in U. S. : legacy, athletics, demographic, ethnicity © Gottheil, Smith 58

SEM Anaheim 2008 Admissions (Cont'd. ) Ø Admission cycle/timing of offer • Early admission, early action, rolling admission • Offer dates & confirmation deadlines Ø College-university transfer & articulation • Increasing seamless pathways • Blending/overlap of college & university roles, offerings © Gottheil, Smith 59

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid Ø Before the late 1970’s: • Financial aid generally used to meet students’ demonstrated financial aid • An incentive for enrolment Ø Modern financial aid practices focus on: • Both students’ willingness to pay & ability to pay • Influencing institutional brand, reputation & rankings (U. S. ) • Recruitment & retention goals Ø Shift from student support service to key SEM activity © Gottheil, Smith 60

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid (Cont'd. ) Ø In U. S. “out of control” tuition increases & sticker shock have led to increased spending in student financial support • “High tuition/high aid” model of student finance • 3/4 of U. S. undergraduates receive some form of financial aid (2004/05) • Average student debt levels comparable to Canada • Loans have replaced grants as primary method to pay for college Ø In both U. S. & Canada, increased use of merit aid/decrease in needs-based aid © Gottheil, Smith 61

SEM Anaheim 2008 © Gottheil, Smith 62

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid (Cont'd. ) Ø In Canada, increasing government intervention (tuition decreases, freezes or limits; tax credits & rebates; savings programs) • Represents 60% of funding announcements over last 5 years • EPI argues that since 1999/2000 these credits have completely offset effects of any increases in tuition (Usher & Duncan, 2008) • Differences in level of support offered among provinces & type of support given • Universal aid theoretically benefits all students equally but used predominantly by higher income families © Gottheil, Smith 63

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid (Cont'd. ) Ø Although governmental student aid has substantially increased in past decade, share going to those who need it most is in decline • 2007: 61% targeted to students based on need • 1997: 80% targeted to students based on need (Berger, CMSF, 2008) Ø Growing perception by low-income students that they cannot afford college • Debt aversion • Cash constraints • Price constraints © Gottheil, Smith 64

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid (Cont'd. ) Ø Low income Canadians overestimate costs of post-secondary education by 75% and underestimate benefits by 40% Ø Needy students opt to take less costly programs, live at home and work while in school to avoid debt • i. e. , they reduce their perceived need © Gottheil, Smith 65

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid Practices Ø In Canada, complete financial aid information isn’t available to students until after enrolment decision Ø Needs assessment • Government controlled in Canada; institutionally based in U. S. Ø Awarding philosophies • Front-loading • Gapping Ø Awarding timetable Ø Tuition discounting & leveraging © Gottheil, Smith 66

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid Practices (Cont'd. ) Ø Merit scholarships Ø Athletic scholarships Ø Needs-based aid/bursaries Ø Work-study programs Ø Tuition/pricing policies Ø Debt relief (tax credits, post-graduation tax rebates, income-contingent loan repayment, tuition payment plans) © Gottheil, Smith 67

SEM Anaheim 2008 Student Services Ø In general, very similar & of good quality Ø In Canada, student government coordinates (& funds) many student life services, including student union management • In U. S. student government & most student activities funded and overseen at least in part by institution itself – Faculty mentors & advisors © Gottheil, Smith 68

SEM Anaheim 2008 Student Services (Cont’d. ) Ø Relatively small number of residence students at most institutions • Residential Life services are provided by auxiliary services Ø High tech, high touch widely touted Ø Yet “culture of service” still not well developed/implemented © Gottheil, Smith 69

SEM Anaheim 2008 Retention/Student Success Ø Student success initiatives help students achieve their educational & career aspirations through quality academic & student support services, programs & experiences Ø Co-curricular & extra-curricular activities help foster students’ leadership & learning abilities & improve chances of academic success © Gottheil, Smith 70

SEM Anaheim 2008 Retention Ø Although 4 out of 5 Canadians take some sort of PSE by their mid-20 s, 1 in 7 drop out (Youth in Transition Survey, Statistics Canada, 2007) Ø However, MESA Project shows 82% (college) to 90% (university) persist elsewhere (Finnie & Qiu, 2008) Ø u. Manitoba (2008): Nearly 1 in 4 high school grads with A averages are at risk for AW/DQ in first year (lack of structure, loneliness, inadequate preparation, uncertainties about academic majors) Ø Still a philosophy of “weeding out” vs. supporting student success © Gottheil, Smith 71

SEM Anaheim 2008 Retention (Cont’d. ) Ø Retention programs & planning not well developed at most institutions • Most Canadian institutions have not set retention goals Ø Use of NSSE Survey & Canadian University Survey Consortium (CUSC) • Emphasis on “student engagement” in & out of class • Investing in improving student experience © Gottheil, Smith 72

SEM Anaheim 2008 Retention The success of institutional retention efforts ultimately resides in the institution’s capacity to engage faculty & administrators across campus in a collaborative effort to construct educational settings, classrooms & otherwise, that actively engage students (all students, not just some) in learning. - Vincent Tinto © Gottheil, Smith 73

SEM Anaheim 2008 Retention Best Practices Ø Bridging & transition programs Ø First-year programs/orientation Ø Early feedback & pro-active intervention Ø Intrusive academic advising, educational goal-setting Ø Learning communities Ø Supplemental instruction Ø Teaching centres & learning commons Ø High tech, high touch seamless support services Ø Family & community support © Gottheil, Smith 74

SEM Anaheim 2008 Case Study: Canada College © Gottheil, Smith 75

SEM Anaheim 2008 President’s Questions: Ø What are the strengths and weaknesses in Canada College’s situation? Ø What do we need to do to improve our institutional strength and our public position? Ø How should we make short-term and long-term decisions that affect our offerings, services and enrolments? Ø Do you have any specific proposals that you would like to put forward? © Gottheil, Smith 76

SEM Anaheim 2008 Group Discussion Points (within the SEM context): Ø How would you respond to the president’s questions? Ø What kind of information is available to you? Ø What information do you need in order to make substantive contributions? Ø How do you think this should unfold? © Gottheil, Smith 77

SEM Anaheim 2008 Group Assignment & Case Study Discussion © Gottheil, Smith 78

SEM Anaheim 2008 Emerging SEM Issues in Canada © Gottheil, Smith 79

SEM Anaheim 2008 Educational System Ø Blending/overlap of college & university roles, offerings Ø Pressure for more seamless pathways, collaborative programs Ø Re-conceptualization of post-secondary education, move to differentiation Ø Expanding capacity (Ontario, B. C. , Alberta) © Gottheil, Smith 80

SEM Anaheim 2008 Educational System (Cont'd. ) Ø Emergence of accreditation bodies (quality councils) Ø Private institutions (e. g. Quest, Meritus) Ø Out-of-country universities establishing campuses in Canada • e. g. Australia’s Charles Stuart U in Burlington; Fairleigh Dickinson U in B. C. © Gottheil, Smith 81

SEM Anaheim 2008 Fiscal Pressures Ø Decreased government funding Ø Targeted funding with more strings attached Ø Heavier reliance on tuition, revenues Ø Increasing costs (food, energy, construction) Ø Deferred maintenance, crumbling buildings & infrastructure Ø Fixed costs are high & difficult to reduce (e. g. , faculty & staff levels, salaries) Maintaining/expanding enrolment becomes necessary from a financial perspective © Gottheil, Smith 82

SEM Anaheim 2008 Enrolment Planning Ø Demographic “bubble” about to burst • Will increase in educational participation rate & immigration make up for it? Ø Impact of economy → a “wild card” Ø Not just first-year numbers, but total enrolment…. right through the funnel © Gottheil, Smith 83

SEM Anaheim 2008 Impact of Online Learning Ø Double digit growth in recent years Ø Distinctions between on-line and bricks & mortar institutions blurring Ø Moving from the fringes to the centre Ø Why? • Focus on high demand programs with strong career orientations • More convenient & flexible delivery mechanisms • Increasing price of oil (transportation costs) Ø Impacts enrolment & service planning & provision © Gottheil, Smith 84

SEM Anaheim 2008 Data Ø Concern over lack of common data set Ø Questioning whether we’re collecting & sharing the “right” data Ø Use of KPI’s • A tool for assessment of strategies, tactics & outcomes but…. • Also used as a basis for funding (& ranking) institutions © Gottheil, Smith 85

SEM Anaheim 2008 When the waterhole dries up, the animals start looking at each other differently. African Proverb © Gottheil, Smith 86

SEM Anaheim 2008 Recruitment Ø Escalating competition has resulted in seeking of new markets (geographic, post-secondary, “mature”, under-served populations) Ø Concern with access (& persistence) of “ 1 st generation” & “low-income” students Ø Desire for increased flexibility (scheduling, course offerings, mode of instructional delivery) Ø Focus on parental expectations & pressures • Gen-X parents involved in children’s college search, selection & career choices © Gottheil, Smith 87

SEM Anaheim 2008 Impact of E-Recruitment Ø Development of the “stealth” marketplace • Proliferation of secret shoppers • Resistant to traditional marketing Ø People get information directly from each other, not from institutions • Growth of WOM, “viral” marketing, social networking • We no longer control our own messages © Gottheil, Smith 88

SEM Anaheim 2008 Impact of E-Recruitment Ø Importance of developing relationships through online (& offline) communications Ø CRM systems, Web portals & enhanced Web sites • Information “just in time” • Personalized & customized communication - Example: Customized print-on-demand viewbooks Ø Expectation of 24/7 e-services Ø On-line recruitment fairs © Gottheil, Smith 89

SEM Anaheim 2008 Admissions Ø Change in philosophy from gatekeeper to facilitating enrolment • Self-admission (UBC); self-reporting of grades Ø Centralized application centres Ø Some universities beginning to advocate entrance testing due to a concern over grade inflation at the high school level © Gottheil, Smith 90

SEM Anaheim 2008 Admissions (Cont'd. ) Ø Holistic admissions assessment Ø Pressure for more transfer pathways & collaborative agreements Ø Dual enrolment programs Ø Reserving spaces for under-represented groups © Gottheil, Smith 91

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid Ø Use as a SEM strategy to boost enrolment Ø Rising fees & higher student debt load Ø 59% of undergraduates graduate with debt (2007) Ø Biggest failure of student financial aid system has been its inability to close gap in access to postsecondary education for low-income youth © Gottheil, Smith 92

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid (Cont’d. ) Ø Affordability seen as an accessibility issue • Low-income students think they can’t afford tuition & rule themselves out before graduating from HS Ø Need for financial aid workshops for families when students in middle & high school to build expectations for attending PSE Ø On-campus work-study programs Ø Need to simplify financial aid & make it more transparent © Gottheil, Smith 93

SEM Anaheim 2008 Financial Aid (Cont'd. ) Ø Growing use of merit aid • Disproportionately awarded to higher income students • Now being questioned, shift to more use of needs-based aid Ø Targeted aid/scholarships to Aboriginal students (B. C. ; U of Winnipeg) Ø Increase in athletics scholarships (Ontario) Ø Slated closure of Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation in 2009 © Gottheil, Smith 94

SEM Anaheim 2008 Student Service Ø Antiquated policies, procedures, programs, delivery methods & organizational culture that developed during period of student abundance continue to function Ø Lack of a strong “culture of service” • Students seen as interrupting more important activities • Need for more e-service programs & support Ø Bicameral governance structures & collegial decision-making processes make it difficult to respond quickly © Gottheil, Smith 95

SEM Anaheim 2008 Student Success Ø Recognition of link between recruitment & retention Ø Students drop out because of dissatisfaction with their program, financial concerns, & career indecision (CMSF, 2008) Ø Bridging & transition programs Ø Need to reach out to parents, families & communities • Parent listservs, web-based resources Ø Focus on the student experience, student engagement, service learning • u. Calgary: e-portfolio to recognize volunteerism & extra- curricular activities © Gottheil, Smith 96

SEM Anaheim 2008 The Next Horizon … Graduate SEM © Gottheil, Smith 97

SEM Anaheim 2008 The SEM Plan: A Great Place to Start © Gottheil, Smith 98

SEM Anaheim 2008 When you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there. - Cheshire Cat, Alice in Wonderland © Gottheil, Smith 99

SEM Anaheim 2008 The enrolment plan serves as the road map for achieving specific institutional goals, typically connected to student body size, enrolment mix, and revenue, while also providing specific indicators on the effectiveness of the learning environment. - Janet Ward, 2005 © Gottheil, Smith 100

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM Planning Model Meeting Goals Typical starting point Tactics Strategies DATA Enrolment Infrastructure Structure, Staffing, Skills, Systems, Service Clear Mission & Goals © Gottheil, Smith 101

SEM Anaheim 2008 SEM Planning Model Meeting Goals Tactics Strategies DATA Enrolment Infrastructure Structure, Staffing, Skills, Systems, Service Starting point for long-term success Clear Mission & Goals © Gottheil, Smith 102

SEM Anaheim 2008 The SEM Plan- Components 1. Define relationship to the College’s strategic plan 2. Produce an environmental scan 3. Collect data: informs everything (goal-setting, tactics/strategies, assessment) l Enrolment: totals, demographics, 5 -year trends, etc. l Promotion & marketing l Admissions & entry process l Image & reputation l Retention l Market surveys, competitor analysis l Financial aid l Course offerings: capacity, scheduling, waitlists l Budget: income streams, expenditures © Gottheil, Smith 103

SEM Anaheim 2008 The SEM Plan- Components (Cont’d. ) 4. Identify key enrollment-related issues 5. Identify how to respond to those issues 6. Set goals: enrolment targets, program mix, program delivery, income targets, services © Gottheil, Smith 104

SEM Anaheim 2008 The SEM Plan- Components (Cont’d. ) 7. Suggest strategies l Recruitment l Marketing l Program mix l Policies and procedures l Retention l Financial aid 8. Establish accountability l Who does what and when? © Gottheil, Smith 105

SEM Anaheim 2008 The SEM Plan- Components (Cont’d. ) 9. Include measurements/ key performance indicators (KPIs) l Most goals should be measurable l Know your baseline data, and measure against it 10. Be sure the process is on-going: l Follow-up on assessment of the KPIs l Update often – this is not a long range plan. . . it is a strategic plan. Be strategic! l Ensure continuous communication with campus © Gottheil, Smith 106

SEM Anaheim 2008 Let’s Continue to Share our Ideas! © Gottheil, Smith 107

SEM Anaheim 2008 Q&A Thank you! © Gottheil, Smith 108